Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Gina B, Dec 3, 2013.
What do you think of this video?
The minute she used drug use as an example of police enforcing immoral laws she lost the argument.
I think a Text, with some examples of what this woman is talking about would be helpful. But there's no denying what she is saying is true. Her questions are valid.
I think those are meant to be thought about - the examples and such, but likely, such examples may later be found on the website as it is built.
I'd suggest keeping an eye on it if you're interested. It looks promising.
I would like to see the website when it is ready.
I didn't listen to the whole video. She disqualified herself from having any knowledge or authority to speak on the subject of law enforcement in the first thirty seconds.
For one thing, she assumes police officers blindly obey their superiors without giving thought or question to their actions. She is exceptionally naïve in her philosophy.
Police officers, soldiers, firefighters, anyone whose primary duty is the public safety, strongly believe in their mission. They are charged to enforce the laws of the land, to run toward danger when everyone else is running away, and to keep society safe. Despite the dictatorial attitude of many in government today, the vast majority of our laws have been vetted by the legislative process and the courts, to the extent that they are rarely abused. I'm not naïve enough to believe they are never abused, but the reason we think they are abused far more often than reality proves is because our socialist media points its cameras and microphones at the rare exception and makes us think those are the rule, not the exception they truly represent.
Most police officers have some legal education. In fact, many are going to law school -- not necessarily to become lawyers but to become acquainted with the legal theory behind the law. Many others are psychology majors and are becoming familiar with how people think, react and believe. They are not the blind automatons this young lady -- and many like her -- believe them to be. They are convinced of the rightness of their law enforcement activities, and will not be swayed by a young anarchist such as this woman.
The young lady suffers from the same malady that afflicts all young people: The desire to do whatever they choose, whenever they choose, however they choose. They reject authority, represented by the uniform of a police officer or soldier --
-- or represented by the Bible, the church and the Christian nation in which they live, that espouses the authority of Jesus Christ. Eventually they have to come to terms with reality, that there are laws, there are boundaries, there are expectations, there are responsibilities.
And it is good.
Basically I agree with you, but, I think anyway, the powers that be ((this includes those "powers of the air" that Paul referred to ) are slowly but surely getting the types this gal talked about into positions to do just as she said.
The raid to capture/expel (??) Elian Gonzales under the Janet Reno AG term comes to mind. Also the raid by the FBI on the Montana crew & the David Koresh affair.
Granted all I REALLY know is what was in the news, but it seems that there is a tendency to over-react from the top, but usually, at least I would assume, that info would be given as to the situation and severity of the "threat" to the line officers; and who knows how much distorted info they have been fed.
At some point the actual enforcers will/could have been replaced with those who care for nothing but "doing their job", and at that time no citizen will be immune from whatever!!!!
I agree with most of the points above, police officers aren't mindless automatons who do everything their superiors tell them to do. Several of the examples given are red herrings.
For instance, the home to home searches following the Boston Marathon bombing, while a compelling demonstration of how far local governments have gone to enforce safety over rights, aren't necessarily illegal based on Massachusetts state law. Given the exigent circumstances the searches were legal under US and state law.
The video is full of inaccuracies and misleading information. It is somewhat compelling and asks good questions, but I don't know any police officer who is routely following all orders given by their superiors.
I can't agree that was a bad decision. Given the circumstances, the boy belonged with his father, not a potentially corrupt and criminally inclined uncle. That is one thing Clinton and Reno got right, though there was not really and truly "good" resolution to that situation.
I think you mean Idaho, the Ruby Ridge seige, which involved Randy Weaver. It is hard for me to have sympathy for a man who wanted to live as a survivalist, who uprooted his family from their Iowa farm in order to move to somewhere he considered "safe" from the "apocalypse" -- which is, in the final analysis, what these nutcases call God's judgment and tribulation -- who believed the world to be on the verge of that Apocalypse. While I joke about there always being "one more sign" that it is upon us, the truth is no one on Earth knows the time and place. Weaver was a criminal who instigated the events that resulted in the attention and reactions of law enforcement that tragically ended with the death of Weaver's son. Regardless of how heroic some misguided individuals want to paint him, Weaver brought the entire affair down on himself and his family.
Another popular "proof" of government turning on its people that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Much like the Kennedy assassination, the incidents involving both Weaver and Koresh are painted as a "government conspiracy" when the reality is, both were mentally ill and created the situations in which deaths occurred for which they, and they alone, were responsible.
They are not given "distorted information." They have observational powers of their own. The media which inevitably is responsible for fomenting these dark, mysterious "conspiracies" has no real observational training or talent as compared to the average uniformed police officer. The ridiculous speculations, particularly about Waco, are fed by bad information coming from untrained and incompetent media types who, despite being at the scene, have no clue what happened.
Not going to happen. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble.
It seems the problem with solving problems such as too much power in the government, enforced by police and others, is that people do not want to admit the problem exists.
Those who say it is a problem are immediately labeled as radicals and painted as people who would have chaos and destruction. That's simply not the case.
While so many are bent on insisting we must have order and rules, what is happening?
We have family courts, where adults have no right to speak and where children are so often ripped from their families and placed with abusers, and it's said to be in the best interest of the children. And everyone agrees. The powers that be must be right. And the powers that be enforce it.
We have laws put into place like ObamaCare, that are harming doctors, harming small businesses, costing citizens more money, costing some families loss of income. And it's said to be in the best interest of the citizens. The power that be must be right. And the powers that be enforce it.
For crying out loud, there are places that make rules on what kind of window coverings one must have. And it's said to be in the best interest of the community. The powers that be must be right. And the powers that be enforce it.
It seems to me that the citizens of the United States have gotten very sleepy. They whimper when they should roar and the rules and regulations have become downright ridiculous, but the majority puts up with it and puts down those who make attempts to stand up against the insanity of over-regulation by the government.
BTW, and interesting little side here. The tamest place I ever saw had no local police department. It was interesting to watch the difference in human behavior.
Seems that the constant presence of law enforcement brings out childish, dependent, unruly behaviors, while lack of uniforms brings out mature, cooperative behavior among citizens. I felt much more safe among people who helped each other than with people who were dependent on uniforms.
That is all fine and well but what happens is when one uses such an occasion to include their little pet peeve about not arresting those who use drugs and trying to paint them as non violent crimes therefore they should be ignored you lose all credibility. Radical or not.
Perception leads to wrong conclusions. How often does this really happen? Honestly? Don't go on gut reaction to answer this question. Research it. Discover how rare this is. I'm not going to pretend there aren't exceptions, but they truly are exceptions, not the general rule. Social service workers are overworked and underpaid, and unfortunately at times they act exactly like that.
I don't deny there are abuses of power by so-called "child protection services" which are typically executed by small little people -- and I hesitate to say this, but by man-hating women. I've seen it. I raised my kids by myself, but it took me two years of wrestling with a district court trustee who tried to intervene in the case due to the absence of my ex-wife. Why was she absent? She was off doing drugs with a federal-parolee-boyfriend who was running from his P.O.!! The trustee's agent was bent on preventing a father from being sole provider for his children, despite the fact the mother was totally unfit. I'm nonetheless convinced this woman was the extreme exception, and does not represent the typical methodology of such workers.
Have you not noticed that over half the country is against this law remaining in effect? I'm certain it is going to utterly fail, or be repealed. It isn't a good example. In fact, it is one of the best examples of how the overreaching authority of the federal government is being curbed by public opinion and legislative action.
Those are home owners associations, and they have been successfully challenged in court. Often. They don't have the rule of law in their favor.
You're right, we have. But attacking the police who enforce the laws is exactly the wrong reaction. It isn't their fault, and I've got to insist, again, that they are not mindless automatons who adhere and obey without thought. I've had this discussion with another member of our board who thinks the police are the problem. They aren't. Without them, we'd have anarchy, and this ...
... is utter nonsense. I don't notice police officers in my neighborhood, they are not a constant presence, though it is reassuring to see them drive through on occasion, and it is more than reassuring to see them respond to an emergency in a mere matter of minutes. Your "tame little place" would have wondered why law enforcement didn't respond more quickly if it ever needed assistance, and the answer would be, they, the citizens, didn't bother to prepare for the situation.
Revmitchell, I understand where you're coming from. However, why throw out the entire concept based on a disagreement over one aspect of the viewpoint? We all have disagreements over parts of whatever platforms we take part in throughout our lives.
For example, if you choose to generally stand with Republicans, you do not agree with everything the party stands for and everything members of that party say, but you agree with the basic concepts. The same goes for the Baptist denomination, and even your own church. There is never going to be total agreement with any one person, let alone an entire line of thinking.
I can't agree that it's okay to completely discredit and ignore an entire position/person based on disagreement over not being able to entire agree with every statement they make. If we did that, we would have nothing and nobody to stand with. Well, that's not entirely true, we would still have the Bible, but even then we would stand alone, as I know of nobody who can totally agree with another human being on the complete interpretation of everything it contains.
That's how it's done in "mainstream America" Gina.
If you don't tow the establishment line then you must be some kind of nut.
That's called mainstream indoctrination and the people like the good Rev and TND who can easily rattle off seven hundred reasons why having a militarized police force that act as enforcers of unconstitutional laws is a good thing while inferring you are a nutcase for questioning it.
I like the way TND spins things. Randy Weaver was gasp a "survivalist" how dare he? To guys like TND it's perfectly natural to send out an army of militarized cops to serve a warrant. Randy's wife was to blame for being in the sniper's crosshairs because she was with a "survivalist".
Waco. Well the powers that be had to kill those children to protect them from nuts like Koresh. The trigger pullers are always the heros. Because they put their life on the line everyday.
Oh sure there are a few thousand mistakes made HERE and THERE but on the whole the militarized federalized law enforcement officers of today are our friends. Nevermind these "isolated incidents" that are happening all over the world not just the USA are becoming the norm Gina, because . . . well it's the norm.
We've been conditioned to accept the govt "ruling" us, spyng on us, stealing from us, taking our children away from us, and using us as cash cows and the police enforcing the ruling elite's "laws" that only benefit the elite ruling class
Today's "law enforcement officers" are more like the mafia's musclemen that enforce the rules on us that the elite make to enrich themselves at our expense than the "peace officers" in the old days. The elite don't have to obey all the rules they make. The can lie cheat steal and murder people with little fear of having their own rules enforced on them.
Because in this country we RESPECT AUHTORITY!!! And if you question it you're a radical.
To me the whole point of the video was to present the very distinct possibility AND probability that such enforcement techniques could be common place in a very short time.
Given the direction our country's politicians are headed along with the masses that are sucking at the gov't teat, such measures could be instituted pronto and most would never know the difference till they personally were affected.
IOW, don't let your guard down or it will be here and you never saw it coming!!!!!!!! :BangHead:
Oh, don't bother to say that it will never happen because it's un-constitutional; that horse was killed years ago.:sleep:
I am amazed at how many sheeple there are on the Baptist Board.
I'm glad there's some place somewhere that doesn't need law enforcement. But consider: did they ever have law enforcement?
Most places don't start with law enforcement. Law enforcement is enjoined when the people feel a need for protection.
But it's up to those same people to restrict those who are given the responsibility of enforcing laws.
Extreme exception, TND, even though it happened to you personally and so many are speaking out that it has happened to them?
Sounds a bit out there to think that with so many others saying this happened to them, you would choose yourself as the rare exception and they would all be somehow lying or wrong and being treated just by the same system.
I do like giving people the benefit of the doubt though, so I'd like to propose a deal.
We're all pretty busy people, so let's take a few years and look it over in our spare time.
We'll come back in three years and see what we found and post it.
That should be plenty of time to see what crops up, new elections and laws will be thrown into the mix, we can do a bit of research here and there, and come back with a bit of actual knowledge on both our parts.
Yes, extreme exception. How many child custody and child welfare cases are active in the U.S. at any one time? How many cases like this do you read about? Hard to find statistics on this, but it would be ludicrous to think this is anything other than an extreme exception. Otherwise, there would be no child protective services. They'd have jailed 'em all long ago.
Gina, there are literally millions of these cases active at any one time. We hear about ... what? Two, three a year? Don't go by what your eyes and ears tell you. Deal with reality.
We don't have to do that. You can do a Google search now and see how many cases come up like the ones you think are "commonplace." Then do a Google search on how many children are in custody or protective cases at any one time. That will be your answer, and you will find your perceptions are misleading you.